hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Yu <yuzhih...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Branch for 1.3
Date Thu, 25 Feb 2016 21:32:06 GMT
There is also hbase-spark module worth considering for backport.

Current active JIRA is HBASE-14801

FYI

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Mikhail. Looks like a good enough list for justifying a minor
> release.
>
> HBASE-15181 is almost ready to go.
>
> What do you guys think about MOB in branch-1, and possibly in 1.3. There
> was a separate thread some time ago, don't remember the conclusion there.
>
> Enis
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Mikhail Antonov <antonov@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > To me it's not really about individual big features (besides, big
> features
> > might be hard to accommodate in a minor release), but enough good things
> to
> > justify minor release.
> >
> > What we can have (unless I'm missing something):
> >
> > [Already done or to be further improved]
> >  - HBASE-15177 - more GC-friendly allocations in RPC services
> >  - HBASE-14457 - multi WAL improvements
> >  - HBASE-15222 - optimizations in metrics system, some more metrics
> > (like HBASE-15135, HBASE-15068)
> >  - HBASE-15306, HBASE-15136 - improving call queues handling
> >
> > [To be reviewed?):
> >  - HBASE-15181 - date based tiered compactions (?)
> >  - HBASE-11290 - unlock RegionStates. There was a patch update relatively
> > recently to it based on comments.
> >
> > [Possible?]
> >  - HBASE-13557 - special handling for system tables WALs
> >  - HBASE-13017 - keep table state in meta
> >
> > 1.2 was cut off mid-June 2015.. Should be enough time since then for a
> > minor release.
> >
> > Mikhail
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Enis Söztutar <enis.soz@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What are the "features" in current branch-1 that is not there in 1.2?
> If
> > > there is none, it is not worth branching yet.
> > >
> > > Enis
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Purtell <
> > andrew.purtell@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, each 0.94.x/0.96.x/98.x was or is a minor release. :-) Sometimes
> > the
> > > > changes in those releases could all be considered "point" in scope or
> > > > effect but not always. Further supporting this point of view, when we
> > > went
> > > > from 0.94 to 0.96 it was a major increment, in effect, due to 'the
> > > > singularity'.
> > > >
> > > > Doing a new minor every month would be more like a return to past
> state
> > > of
> > > > affairs, for better or worse, in my humble opinion.
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Elliott Clark <
> eclark@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Is it time to branch for 1.3 ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Sean did a great job getting 1.2 out. However it was a hard
> > difficult
> > > > >> process that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Is it time to branch
for
> 1.3
> > > and
> > > > >> start the process of stabilizing again so that we can get a
> monthly
> > > > cadence
> > > > >> for minor releases going?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Monthly cadence for minors is upping the ante. We used to be about
> > > > > monthly's for point releases.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for the mighty Mikhail as RM. Sean, please UPS him the special
> > robe
> > > > that
> > > > > he has to wear while performing his RMness duties.
> > > > >
> > > > > St.Ack
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message